Re: What we learned from week 1
 

Right, from the back it is perfectly easy, but driving up and shooting from the side of the pyramid while touching it is not as easy.

Re: What we learned from week 1
 

If something like this WAS implemented, 48 never would have been able to pull off what they did. It was an amazing sight, we still lost, but it was still very exciting to watch.

Re: What we learned from week 1
 

Can anyone give a little insight into going under the opponents pyramid?

I've heard of it being used to evade defense. My main concern is whether referees were ruling things like "antennae" (zip ties, flags, ect) as inconsequential contact and therefore not calling fouls when you zip under the opponents pyramid.

Re: What we learned from week 1
 

We were never penalized for going under the opponent pyramid and our zipties and arm do brush the pyramid bar as we pass by.

It did seem difficult for referees to judge. They were quick to call the foul if someone was trying to hang (even someone who did not have an operational climbing mechanism), but seemed reluctant to call it for robots who were in the act of shooting. Penalties seemed to be better defined in elimination matches than they were in qualifications, and I expect rules to be even more consistent in week 2. Would love for someone to tape the drivers meeting at a week 2 event to hear about how things are being called, or to have a referee chime in after the call to give us a heads up about how they want to enforce things.

Re: What we learned from week 1
 

We used going under the pyramid FOR defense. I know that when we were figuring out how to contact the pyramid to help our aiming, we made sure that it was retractable to run no risk of hitting the opponents pyramid, except at the corners.

Re: What we learned from week 1
 

This was a technique we used frequently at CVR to evade tall defenders on our way to and from the feeder station. The head ref made it clear in a discussion I had with him that as long as no one's climb -- or ability to climb -- was affected, fouls would not be given.

I have a recording of said discussion I could post if anyone is interested.

Re: What we learned from week 1
 

It seems that popular opinion suggests that a reliable 30 point climb isn't viable. I disagree. Our robot could score about 48 points a match, (18 auto, 30 climb), and I found many of our matches coming down to 70-80 point games. I think having at least one reliable 30 point climb on an alliance to be a great asset. I also found that defense played a huge role in the final matches of the elimination rounds, especially against full-court shooters.

Re: What we learned from week 1
 

There is a popular opinion that a reliable 30 point climb and 20 point dump only is not viable if you think you can win a match all by yourself.

7 weeks ago there was a popular strategic opinion floating in the community that a 50 point climb/dump would be a slam dunk to single-handedly win matches because games are historically very low-scoring outside of MSC/MAR/CMP/IRI. Some people (read as: myself and I'm sure a few others) nixed that idea and tried to nudge their teams into nixing that idea because the game can clearly be seen as one capable of high scores in the frisbee goals because of its rigidity as a game piece and its more accessible targets.

Still, climb/dump specialists which accomplish the secondary objective very well are great as secondary alliance partners. They are in no way inferior to all disc-throwing robot or disc/30pt climbs, but it accomplishes a secondary objective with a capped point-scoring ability and thus is a likely secondary partner to a strategy, not a primary partner or alliance captain.

Re: What we learned from week 1
 

There is a popular opinion that a reliable 50 point robot is not viable if you think you can win a match all by yourself.

7 weeks ago there was a popular strategic opinion floating in the community that a 50 point robot would be a slam dunk to single-handedly win matches. Some people (read as: myself and I'm sure a few others) nixed that idea and tried to nudge their teams into analyzing their capabilities to produce the highest scoring robot possible. For a few teams that was a 100 point robot, a few more it was 70 point robot, a few more it was a 50 point robot, and for the vast majority it is a less-than-15 point robot (based on the first week alliance scoring averages).

Still, robots which accomplish the primary objective of scoring points (is there a secondary objective? maybe playing defense?) are highly desirable as alliance partners. Points are points, whether they're scored at the beginning of the game in autonomous or at the end of the game on the pyramid. A smart alliance captain will select his alliance based on the combination which he believes will maximize his alliance's scoring capabilities in relation to his opponents.

A robot which consistently scores less than 50 points is a likely secondary partner to a strategy, not a primary partner or alliance captain.

Re: What we learned from week 1
 

This is good to know for our antenna as well.

However, are you saying that if you do it while a robot is trying to climb, that its a foul?

Re: What we learned from week 1
 

We identified early in the build season that a 30 point climb + 20 point dump was a viable strategy if and only if it could be done with sufficient alacrity, because the potential for scoring frisbees is so darn high this year. Yes, a lot of teams fail at basic functionality every year, but not enough of them to make climb+dump-only a viable game winner in the long term.

We failed in a rather epic manner to pull off a fast 30 point climb, which translated into an inconsistent and too-hard-to-line-up 10 point climb at FLR, but this problem will be fixed at Buckeye. :)

Re: What we learned from week 1
 

Doing it from the side is as easy as adding two pieces of fiberglass rod (or similar**) to your robot to make sure that if any part of your machine is under the pyramid, it's touching some point on the horizontal bar of level 1.

That being said, the intent of the pyramid rules seems to be quite clear to most people, but they're not written in such a way that they can be clearly and decisively called by a ref without that ref finding the correct vantage point.

I guess my big problem with the pyramid rules as written are that they do not award any protection to a machine that is inside of the pyramid but not touching it. One would think that this robot is offered some sort of protection, but that is not the case.

**Realistically, we could all go the vex route and start using zipties to extend a robot's contact points outside of traditional structure, but I like to think that we don't need to go there..

Re: What we learned from week 1
 

I am glad to be confirmed on this prediction. What a relief!

Re: What we learned from week 1
 

I absolutely don't think this years game needs any more protected zones. The field is already cramped enough with the pyramids taking up huge swaths of space and robots trying to travel around them to feeder stations. Teams who planned (notably not mine) to travel under they pyramid to lower the traffic jam should be given their requisite bonus in not being penalized.

Re: What we learned from week 1
 

"I guess my big problem with the pyramid rules as written are that they do not award any protection to a machine that is inside of the pyramid but not touching it. One would think that this robot is offered some sort of protection, but that is not the case."

I can say I've seen this first-hand. On our alliance, we were the designated "climb-bot." in the final match (our bot lines up for a climb on the inside on one of the sides of the pyramid) we were pushed completely out of the pyramid by a defender, and just held away from the pyramid for the remainder of the match. I believe defense is going to be much bigger this year, compared to last.